Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:45:13 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> To: trevor@jpj.net Cc: kris@FreeBSD.org, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, portmgr@FreeBSD.org, wollman@FreeBSD.org, thierry@pompo.net Subject: Re: malloc.h--cheaper by the dozen? Message-ID: <200203311945.g2VJjDFX032971@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <20020330232651.I16128-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31 Mar, Trevor Johnson wrote:
> Instead of having separate patches for dozens of ports, wouldn't the
> maintenance be much easier if the patching were done from bsd.port.mk
> instead? A few days ago, Thierry Thomas proposed [0] a patch which
> would do just that. It could be argued that patching every single
> port is wasteful, but how about a facility where the porter could
> add a "MALLOC_PATCH= yes" or "MALLOC_PATCH= no" line to enable or
> disable the patching (depending on whether it would default to being
> on or off)? Maybe a warning could be generated, in case anything were
> changed by the patching.
Let me express my support for this proposal with the followin "pork
barrel" attachment. If bsd.port.mk detects the LOCALBASE is different
from /usr/local or X11BASE is different from /usr/X11R6 it shall do
something like the following (untested) after the patching:
find ${WRKSRC} -type f -print0 | \
xargs -0 ${GREP} -lE --null '/usr/X11R6|/usr/local' | \
xargs -0 ${PERL} -pi -e 's,/usr/X11R6,${X11BASE},g;' \
-e 's,/usr/local,${LOCALBASE},g'
In many cases this is not neccessary, since configure scripts usually
DTRT, but not always. Also the wrong path often ends up hardcoded in the
documentation, etc.
Some ports do this already, but this another one of those "cheaper by
the dozen" things, IMHO.
-mi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200203311945.g2VJjDFX032971>